Should housing, food and water be a human right? Why not?

Should housing, food and water be a human right? Why not?

Yes, if you earn them.

Daily reminder that "human rights" are a concept invented by white people.

Having access to them, yes. But not given them off the back of others.

Absolutely. I would also add giga speed internet cuz it be important too. These human rights should be provided by UN.

no that bullshit leads to inefficiency. but if you can't get at least water and food you're an asshole.

Work makes a man fulfilled for a lifetime. Removing persuit creates depression. If we have the technology to free people from mundane work they should always be forced to persue a higher level. Living every day at for selfish needs will never make you happy. Find a good girl, marry them and have a big family. Ensured lifelong happiness above week to week.

ABSOLUTELY NOT

all these beta reddits itt. jesus christ,

Probably yes, it's necessary to have a minimal level of equal opportunity to create a just society.

No, because I want them.

No.
Ultimately the only things that should be guaranteed is that you will be allowed to go about your life and live it in peace.

Good thing too. God knows the nogs never were fucked enough to invent the concept.

If a man can't provide he's a boy and shouldn't have children to begin with. Pathetic people shouldn't be idolised. You can be strong and smart. Genes mean shit with enough determination and willpower

Yes they should be. Before we started living in large cities it was much easier to find your own food. If youre in a village thats a few kilometers wide then going outside of it to hunt is much easier and can be done on foot in a day. Today most cities it would take 20 hours to walk out of and days and days to get to a place that is not infested with humans and has animals you can hunt.
The reason safaris and such organisations exist is because people would gladly pay to have the joy of hunting because they cannot get it elsewhere. Water is the same, by the time you get to a natural water source you are already dead of thrist because cities are bigger than travel routes of people in the past ( not all travel routes not all peoples travel routes and not all cities ). In cities there is no place to cultivate your own food. Sure some have a back yard they grow some plants in but where are the animals? And they only have that benefit because you have over a thousand people inside 1 building that do not have that capability.
And another thing is that getting to food and the water in the past was a journey that a 100 if not more people go to. And for a 100 people about 10 20 big animals is enough to feed them. For a thousand its probably hundred bigger animals. And thats just 1 building, how many of those do you have when you just look out your window.
We populated this earth to the point where its more difficult to hunt even with all this technology than ever.

There are no such thing as human rights

Also, human rights are "things" you are born with, i.e. given by God/nature, not things which a government gives to you. You have a human right to be allowed to seek out housing, food, and water. A government may, to some extent, be instituted to stop others from taking these natural rights away from you -- One could argue that this is the ONLY legitimate function of government.

>positive liberties

No for fuck sakes no one owes you property or food/water provide for yourself and your family its not that hard.

As if a "just society" is desirable.
I believe survival of the fittest, and "you don't work, you don't eat" to be the hallmark of a "just society".

Because you don't get to demand things for the sole reason you were shat out of a uterus.

>limited amount of resources on the planet
>more people than resources
>population skyrocketing

Mathematically speaking, how the fuck COULD it be a right? Like even if everyone in the world agreed those things were rights, how the fuck do you suppose one would go about dividing things up?

>give me all the resources and I'll evenly distribute them amongst the people
>well not everyone, like not murderers and rapists
>and no bigots either
>and also not mean people
>and anyone who disagrees with me gets killed so more resources for everyone else
>in fact, I'll hold on to all this shit until you plebs get your act together
Aaaaaaand now you're communist

World isn't fair. Has nothing to do with justice. You can't morally evaluate nature. You need a conscious agent and nature isn't one. Trying to impose fairness, on the other hand, does require conscious agents and the perpetration of substantial injustice.

you build a city and fill it with people and give all the people in that city all those things, and I'll show up and start a fire.

No, should be privatized

>people
no it was canadians

So if I kill you and take your stuff it's fine because you weren't fit enough to survive?

Giving free food and water to niggers causes them to breed excessively.

Because once people's needs are fully met, they have children who also need those things, and the cycle never stops until there's collapse.

Good goy.

"Human rights" is a meme created & perpetuated by idealist fools who deny Natural selection, science, and nature. In the animal kingdom, there is only survival of the fittest. That's it.

What makes you think he was talking about a lawless society? If you trespass his domain he will shoot your ass.

>Water companies privatise water using militia they hired.
>They refuse to sell water to you because you had a disagreement with one of their bosses.
>Anybody that attempts to give you water will also be cut off.
>You get real thirsty.
>You try and steal some water from a grocery store.
>Get shot in the face for violating the NAP
>Body sold to a local necrophiliac.
Sounds good man.

Human rights do not exist. Please demonstrate the scientifically verifiable existence of said rights.

Well he was saying survival of the fittest. What if my government comes in and takes your land and resources and then kills you because you were weak? Is that moral? Is that a good system?

However that is the reason that no animal is as widespread and powerful as humans.
Also since you talk about natural selection, would you kill your own child for not developing right or being too weak? Lions do.

Human rights don't exist

also sage

They exist when we construct them and agree upon them. They may not exist as a natural state of the universe but like so many things they only exist because we think them.

>muh strawman
He's talking about a society based on small government that allows for a equal playing field which obviously will generate natural inequality due to the principle of survival of the fittest.

This is a big difference between left and right. Left thinks material things are rights. Right thinks certain behaviors or actions are rights. Its nice for the left since they can always insert themselves into the transfer of those material things and help themselves to it like a greedy pig at the trough.

This is a very important statement everyone should take a note of.
Language doesnt exist in nature either, we just agreed that some screams mean some things and there you go. Money? What the fuck is money. That shits not real either, we just agree that a piece of paper is somehow worth something.

Left is more about the present, at its core its all about the individual. Right is more about the future and at its core is the family unit and primarily the next generation.
Thats why to most leftist you cannot explain why you shouldnt be a degenerate and do nothing but indulge in today. They simply dont see the consequences beyond their life span.

Just sounds like you want the government to protect you because you're weak. Also life is never a level playing field. If I'm born to a wealthy family and you're born to a poor one should I say that it's fair that I got into a prestigious college while you are flipping burgers because you couldn't afford educate yourself?

Fuck that communist piece of shit Rawls and his veil of ignorance

>What if my government comes in and takes your land and resources and then kills you because you were weak? Is that moral? Is that a good system?

That's called war, and it's the system we've been using for all of recorded history. It's moral, and a good system.

You cannot live the life of the past in todays world, thats simply it. Natural selection does not exist within a civilisation, at least its not as strict. And its funny you mention college, if pure naturalistic view is the one you apply your college onto. You would die without the brutes and capable hunters even if you know complex mathematics.
Putting past actions in todays time is incredibly difficult and unrealistic.

I think you assume that I believe natural selection is the proper way of things or even the state of the world today. I don't. I am just giving examples of situations in which 'survival of the fittest' doesn't really equate to a good/moral/just life.

No I would not kill my own child because it's not necessary to. If lions want to, then they can by all means. But that example has literally nothing to do with natural selection. Go learn what natural selection is, then come back with a relevant example.

What if they are mentally and/or physically handicapped? I think genes play an important role there and they have no fault in not being able to provide.

>equality
power to force business owners and public institutions to deal with an unlimited amount of my narcissistic drama
>freedom
said drama can get pretty gross but everyone has to let me do it in public
>peace
only weird churchgoing goyim from like Kansas have to do army stuff
>hope
telegenic liberal politicians
>dignity
right to do undignified things and yet be recognized as a kind of bizarro nobility
>rule of law
totally kidding
>prosperity
gibs
>justice
more gibs, or less rule of law, depending on the situation

I explicitely said small government, which means few to no government intervention. Jezus christ, dude.

Yes, you should have the right to housing, food and water in exchange for money.

It depends. Who has to pay for it? If the answer is not you. you are asking for the government to enslave someone and most likely many people on your behalf. If the answer is you then you are voting to be a slave for the benefit of others who don't have to work. The hungry unwashed masses will never not vote themselves bread at someone else's expense. And the people writing the laws and collecting the (((taxes))) will never not take a cut for themselves. That is why communism "has never been tried before".
P.S. It totally has been tried before both successfully when it is strictly limited and unsuccessfully. I.E. Every time is tried on the masses.

What you are asking for is communism what what you will get is bread lines, tragically bad cars and, gulags. If you want functioning communism join the US military. But that means working and you don't want that now do you?

Yes yes its a misunderstanding. I obviously didnt follow everything you said previously.
It is incredibly relevant, its a practice of eugenics and creating a stronger breed by eliminating weak genes. And when talking about natural selection the biggest examples are evolution and ANIMALS, so why are we suddenly above comparing animals to humans?

The natural selection of the past is not the natural selection of the present and even less so of the future.
Because humans allow each human to get up on his feet and become capable is why we are so fucking powerful. Other animals fight from tribe to tribe and they never unite. If every bird with a sharp beak and claws were to unite in attacking humans we would suffer INCREDIBLE consequences, but that will never happen because they do not help each other. They compete over food day in day out.
I can see the argument that being pure survival of the fittest would reduce the population and thatd be a good thing, but this is a view not most people share. If we really had to compete over a herd of animals i wouldnt be above killing you and people you know during the night as you are sleeping, you got sick? Too bad time to die. Youre tired? Too bad time to die. If only the fittest are to survive, that usually means fit to kill, to eliminate competition, and there is no better elimination than death.

The original argument was that just society is 'survival of the fittest'. I said that if I murder and take someone's stuff then it must be just because they simply weren't strong enough. You argued that they weren't talking about a lawless society. My counter argument is basically saying that making up laws is counter towards survival of the fittest and is basically making it however can play the rules the best wins. So if I make my own rules that say I can murder and take what I want am I still just?

We all receive police and military protection whether we work or not. Private businesses can be contacted to deliver whatever goods and services people need. But Sup Forums comes from a survivalist, social Darwinist perspective and rejects safety nets. They'll never learn.

>a right to services and physical items
No.

guaranteed shelter and food costs money and labor, money and labor that comes from someone else, somewhere, somehow.

Very well then. Provide gainful employment so they can pay for it.

Sure kills a lot of innocents for a good and moral system.

Positive rights don't exist

A right cannot infringe on another right you dolt.

Positive rights? What are some negative rights? Elaborate.

>arguing an outlier should be the basis of anything
dumb

And it is returned. Government gives you cops protects companies that hire workers that build you a house? You pay some taxes here and there and the circle continues. Many issues with the system exist its true, but its more because of the people rather than the system.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day

You don't even seem to be able to comprehend what a society is. Society cannot exist without laws. A society can still adhere to the principle of survival of the fittest (you are taking the word survival too literally) within a basic framework of laws.

Of course I'm taking it literally, it's how it should be interpreted. The way you word it is 'Resources go to whoever can play the game the best with out set rules' Except some people have a broken controller from the start of the game and you would be happy to call that 'fair'.

Guess what, life isn't fair and you can't make it "fair". You still can't cope with this fact?

No, those should be proof of humanity. If you are capable of providing yourself with those three, you can be considered a human.

Commodities are not rights, you FUCKING 12 YEAR OLD. Get off this site. Go play with your toys.

>That fucking star of david
EVERY
TIME

>a right to be employed by a private business owner
Also no

who said it was a private business?
Govt can create jobs. It's called public works here in the states. I say it'd be a lot cheaper if you simply provided free access to necessities and let private businesses determine their own wages, leading to more jobs for the people.
My argument to the user was that if you're not going to provide a safety net, you must provide employment so the individual can pay their own way. Is there there really any other way around this?

>You must
No, there is no need to. People incapable of surviving without a safety-net or capacity of employment should be only sustained by private, local charity.

Local charities are capable of seeing witch person is caught in an unfortunate situation, and witch person is simply irredeemable. Subsidizing either a safety-net or a mandated employment will allow the cancerous element of the society to fester.

>Subsidizing either a safety-net or a mandated employment will allow the cancerous element of the society to fester
you're saying they'll over-reproduce. that's a whole other issue. why not, instead of circumcision, mandate that every newborn receive a reversible vasectomy?

You have the right to buy all of those things.
You do not have the right to be given any of those things.
If you want to see a real argument, try
>should affordable products be a human right?
In which case you could argue that an affordable basic house could be a human right.
That affordable water be available for purchase.

I just bought a house, it's not glamorous and it's not too expensive either. I saved a lot of money to put the down payment on the house. It's not my fault other people didn't save money.

Because why use a government subsidy to accomplish what nature does itself if left alone?

because we believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - for everyone, not just the lucky ones.

>> provide gainful employment
Again you are asking for some one else to give you something.
No.
It is your responsibility to provide value to others so they in turn give you the goods and services they provide. This value is money.

No, but it should be mandatory to be provided freely at some to-be-determined level by all nations because that's almost the whole point of living in society in the first place (so those who do not provide could be considered non-nations with all that entails).

Just like christcucks belief in skydaddy, your belief does not make something true.

Our resources are limited, and not everyone is created by nature to succeed. To let nature take its course is much more merciful than growing up a new generation of people incapable of sustaining themselves, who are just a small destabilization of the system away from dying in hunger.

The safety-net will have a dysgenic effect on humanity, and will cause our limited resources to be squandered. Without a safetynet, those reosources will be utilized to the best of their owners abilities, or outcompeted by their competitors, instead of being sustained by a parasitical taxation.

>Again you are asking for some one else to give >you something.
>No.
Should the government give me protection through police and military then?

>instead of being sustained by a parasitical taxation
a system where the only tax is a consumption tax (not exceeding 20%) is hardly parasitical. it's an egalitarian solution to the current reality, which is a high functioning global society, not a jungle.

>Should housing, food and water be a human right? Why not?
100% of the product of what you work for should be a human right

>a system where the only tax is a consumption tax (not exceeding 20%) is hardly parasitical.
thats immoral, the only moral tax is based on land use

>Should housing, food and water be a human right? Why not?

Of course, Capitalism is premised on getting as much as you can for as little as you want to pay. Ergo - anyone arguing AGAINST them getting free stuff; is either an idiot, or doesn't understand capitalism.

>which is a high functioning global society, not a jungle.
Africa, middle east and a large swaths of south america are not a high functioning society. To provide a safety-net to them, escpecially africans who have lived in an environment where a higher IQ is a detriment for so long, is squandering the resources highly developed populations have produced.

A bloom of nations is what is best for humanity as a whole, instead of serving an utopian concept like "Egalitarianism". With every ethnicity with land deciding their own management of resources, inevitably technologies and practices that allow the greatest and most conserving production to bloom.

>the only moral tax is based on land use
the 1% already get around this by calling their land "tree farms". i like the general concept of land value tax though. encouraging the productive development of land.

>Good thing too. God knows the nogs never were fucked enough to invent the concept.

They do they just don't understand the consequences of it or how to fully conceptualise it. It's like time or fatherhood to them. They know what it is and that they should have it, but they can't pull it off. Their default state is feudalist anarcho communism. If they weren't so bad at everything except the sports ball africa would be a utopia right now.

i don't buy your premise. provide the infrastructure and education/skills training and Africa will blossom like a rose.

equality of opportunity =/= equality of outcome
the right of ownership of the fruits of my labor > your need of housing. fuck, just read atlas shrugged. sure, everyone should have housing, but everyone should have the right to the products their own work first.

All rights stem from property rights. If a right in the picture doesn't fit into physical property rights it isn't real

yes

Potable water, food and housing aren't rights, but goods that need to be produced and delivered. Somebody has to produce, build or provide them. To say that somebody has a "right" to any of that is tantamount to saying that he has claim on the product of labour of another person.

Its either given voluntarily, bought and paid for, or its simple theft. Q.E. fucking D.

no one is going to build your house for nothing
no one is going to grow your food for nothing and for the water drink your own piss OP

Why should they be?

Might makes right.

>no one is going to build your house for nothing
No one is going to build military aircraft for nothing, either. That's why the government grants lucrative multi-billion dollar contracts to companies like Boeing.

>Before we started living in large cities it was much easier to find your own food

No it wasn't you uneducated fucking retard. For most of the world in all its goddamned history, a stable, reliable, year-round source of food was always won through hard, backbreaking labour, and carried a far, FAR higher cost than it does today. There is a goddamned fucking reason why human population has exploded a hundred fucking fold in the last two hundred years. And that reason is access to food, water, and to a lesser extent modern medicine.

This positivist idea that pastoral, or primitive societies lived in some sort of utopia of plenty needs to fucking die already. The weak died of starvation every single fucking winter and spring in all subsistence societies, and most pre-industrial ones. That's not even counting disease, which killed just as many. And the cost of food? A household might have had to spend oh, two thirds of its annual income just to feed itself. That is, if the economy even existed to buy food. If it was a subsistence level society, with no surplus? Good luck not dying of starvation once the local game and forage gets depleted. Which it did, in a fucking hurry, and regularly.

And water? Water needs to be at least boiled, or it will kill you, over a long enough time period. Usually a short one. That's why for about eight to ten thousand years, the drink of choice in most settled societies wasn't really water, but beer. Very weak beer, with 1-4% alcohol content, but enough to kill all the deadly bacteria. The destitute drank water, and died all the quicker for it.

Jesus fuck, people like you infuriate the shit out of me.

No it won't

The average IQ of African populations is estimated as something between 70 to 85 IQ points.

In the West, most countries make it illegal to induct someone with an IQ below 90- 85. Why? Because a person with an IQ below around 85 is INCAPABLE of being trained to do even simple, repetitive jobs. Literally, incapable of being productive or useful. In the West, that is about 10-15% of the population. Society is partly structured so we can drag that dead weight, and provide for those people, who after all are not at fault for losing the genetic lottery. And we used to do a pretty darned good job of it for a couple decades at least.

In Africa, about half of the population is too stupid to be of any use. It would take centuries or millenia of selection pressure to change that. And we're fucking up even that, as we took away any selection pressure, but that selecting for the best parasites, and the least capable to fend for themselves.